SAN VICENTE SHIPPING, INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, & LAPU-LAPU SHIPPING LINES, MEMBER OF THE CEBU SHIPOWNER’S ASSOCIATION IN CASE NO. 69-8258 OF THE PUBL…

In a motion to dismiss, not particularly noted for brevity,
embodied in forty-six pages containing matters that could very well have been
omitted, the private respondent Lapu-Lapu Shipping
Lines prayed that “this case be dismissed as it has become moot and
academic:  it appearing that [private
respondent] has been confirmed by both the defunct Respondent Public Service
Commission and its successor the Board of Transportation in his use and charge
of the Basic Rates as amended in the operation of his shipping business in the
Philippine Coastwide Trade since its inception to the
present time thereby ratifying the rationale of PSC Order dated 5 Aug 70 PSC
Case No. 69-6258 * * *.”^[1]
This petition for review against the defunct Public Service Commission
originated from its order granting a motion for reconsideration and restoring
to private respondent “its status as a beneficiary of the increase of
rate” granted in its decision of November
28, 1969.  Petitioner, a competitor,
averse to having private respondent enjoy such benefits, filed a petition for
review in an equally verbose pleading contending that such motion for
reconsideration should be set aside on the ground of the lack of the required
number of commissioners to grant it, of alleged violation of mandatory laws, of
lack of evidence to support the findings, thus constituting a grave abuse of
discretion.  The answer filed by private
respondent was of the same character – only more so.  This Court had to contend with almost two
hundred pages of reading matter, much of which could very well have been left
unsaid.

To go back to the motion to dismiss, petitioner was required to
answer.  This it did in a pleading
submitted on September 1, 1976.  Its main thrust is that the orders
“issued by the Board of Transportation in B.T. Case No. 73-18210 and B.T.
Case No. 74-6754 are all provisional in character and cannot affect the Order
issued in PSC Case No. 69-6258, nor render moot and academic the issues
submitted in [its] Petition for Review of 26 August 1970, * * *.”^[2]
It would support its stand primarily on the ground that such orders are
provisional, the Board not having been as yet fully constituted.^[3]

Private respondent was required to reply.  On October
27, 1976, it submitted the same. 
It set forth subsequent resolutions and orders of the Public Service
Commission as well as the Board of Transportation, all issued after the
challenged order of August 5, 1970 to make its point that there could be no
question as to its having been ratified. 
More specifically, as far as the Board of Transportation is concerned,
private respondent included its order dated June 22, 1976.  It
reads thus:  “Acting on the petition
for extension of provisional authority filed by applicant-petitioner Antonio S.
Cohon dated June 14, 1976 and it appearing that
applicant-petitioner’s provisional authority will expire on July 11, 1976 while
the basic application is still pending final determination by this Board and
that being contested, the same may not be finally decided for quite sometime,
the Board believes that in the interest of public welfare and convenience,
applicant’ s provisional authority to operate his five (5) inter-island vessels
contained in the orders of the Board dated July 30, 1974, March 18, 1975, July
11, 1975 and January 13, 1976, maybe, as the same is hereby [extended] for a
period of one (1) year from July 11, 1976. 
In consonance with the policy of this Board to adopt and maintain a
uniform schedule of shipping rates in the inter-island coastwide
trade, the Board, upon consideration of applicant-petitioner’s manifestation
dated May 3, 1976, as well as the opposition thereto filed by oppositor San Vicente Shipping, Inc., dated June 3, 1976,
hereby provisionally authorizes applicant to adopt also the 15%
across-the-board increase in passenger and freight rates granted to the
Philippine Shipowners Association, et. al., by virtue
of the Order dated January 27, 1976
as amended by a subsequent order dated April
5, 1976 issued in Case No. 73-18210, subject to the same terms and
conditions embodied in the aforesaid orders.”^[4]

It does appear clear that there is merit to the motion to
dismiss.  The matter has indeed become
moot and academic.  Respondent Public
Service Commission had been abolished. 
It has been replaced by the Board of Transportation.  As is evident in the pleadings, the precise
issue, the enjoyment by private respondent as a beneficiary of the increase of
rates, challenged by petitioner was passed upon by the latter body.  Moreover, the Board made clear in its order
of June 22, 1976 that the
basic application still pending is final determination, the decision not being
expected “for quite sometime.”^[5]
Under the circumstances, it would be a needless waste of time and effort for this
Court to pass upon the powers of a defunct agency when after all, what is being
litigated is precisely under consideration by the administrative agency now
entrusted with the regulatory function. 
In the light of the supervening facts, this is one case not ripe for
adjudication, there being as yet no final determination.^[6]
The order of the Public Service Commission challenged in the present petition,
has, to quote a recent decision, lapsed into “innocuous desuetude.”^[7]

WHEREFORE, the motion to dismiss this petition dated April 30, 1976 is hereby granted, the
case having become moot and academic.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino,
and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Motion to Dismiss, 45-46.

^[2]
Comments, 1.

^[3] Ibid,
2-5.

^[4]
Exhibit 3, Reply of Private Respondent.

^[5] Ibid,
1.

^[6]
Cf. Arrow Transportation Corporation v. Board of Transportation,
L-39655, March 21, 1975, 63
SCRA 193.

^[7]
Cf. Acting Director v. Agcaoili, L-34512, May 25, 1972, 45 SCRA 115.